How to counter Dark Skies+J1 attack?

[Caesar-Seriona]

I personally don’t like Dark Skies simply because the Allies already have GDP and numbers on their side and I am too afraid to try it myself.

[Ichabod]

@Caesar:

I haven’t yet been hit with Dark Skies however I thought the correctly response should be AA guns and infantry. You need men to chew up bomber attacks and AA guns can do that and target those on defense. I am not sure why people can’t get the idea of offensive attacks against Dark Skies is necessary. Germany didn’t buy enough infantry or artillery so once they run out, they are going to be very protective of their bombers and fighters.

I’m still new to this game…even newer when I played ABH about 6 months ago. Germany does buy enough ground units. He did Dark Skies on me both of the two games I played against him. The 2nd game he did a G1 purchase of 2 infantry / 6 artillery. It isn’t spamming bombers and no ground. It’s more like buying 2-3 bombers a turn starting G4 or G5 plus lots of mechs/artillery everywhere else (and a sub or two now and then for good measure). Also, in Dark Skies they might buy more mech than tanks because they’re a little cheaper and therefore can get more of them. Add a few tanks you already have and now that stack can defend. If the UK sends 16 fighters to Moscow, a nice German stack could go south…no worries though cause the Luffwaffe nuclear bomb is there to help them. Then the UK is forced to make a decision to try to air attack mechs/tanks which is costly or defend @4 which is costly. If the UK managed to get 16 fighters to Moscow then the middle east is lacking ground fodder. Oh by the way, when the UK air leaves Moscow, the next turn Germany bombs the Moscow Major back to the stone age.

[Ichabod]

@hcp

Gargantua is probably right and the only person here who has the wherewithal to defeat this type of stuff.

The problem for me is that Germany doesn’t spam bombers right away in a well played Dark Skies game. Therefore, I don’t know the best formula for winning as the Allies. I suck at this game, even worse as the Allies.

I’ve had a little luck with a KJF strategy I do. The best thing I could say is don’t let up on whichever side you go for. I don’t think you should respond to the Dark Skies unless you intended to do a KGF strategy.

I’ve noticed that better players than me play slow and methodical to stall on whichever side I’m attacking. It’s annoying because they put themselves in a situation where their income is higher, they can defend, and then increase their TUV to the point that the Allies are just out built. If you let up against Japan because you’re scared that Germany is getting too powerful, still don’t let up. You won’t build enough US stuff in time to make a difference (hence your loaded carriers but not enough transports because you spent so much money on defense).

It’s a race. You have to knock out one or the other when playing against a better player. If Germany first, the US needs to still spend a little to keep shucking-troops to Hawaii the whole time to guard that Victory City or risk all and spend 100% against Germany. If KJF, the UK has a tremendous task to try to hold onto the Middle East while supporting Moscow as long as possible. When Moscow falls, that hast to be the same turn that Japan has been shut forever ably out because now the US has to start flying a crap ton of fighter stacks to Cairo.

In 1914 right before the Battle of the Marne, Russia attacked East Prussia. Moltke got scared and transferred two corp to the east. Those two corp were enroute in rail cars during the Battle of the Marne while at the same time the Russian offensive was stopped. Essentially, those two corp were not at either location at the critical moment. Just like in that 1914 real life example, don’t let up.

[aagamerz13]

This seems like an easy strategy to counter.  According to odds calc, a bomber at cost 12 only beats 1inf + 1AAA about 28% of the time while costing 4 IPCs more.  2 bombers only beat 2inf + 1AAA about 38% of the time while costing 13 ipcs more.  So, this is not a great tradeoff for axis if other players make lots of inf.  The counter is for US/UK to go to Spain round 3.  Germany should only have 4 or 5 bombers in range so they cant attack the fleet on round 4.  USSR should be making all inf + 1 or 2 AAs per round.  Germany is in trouble as they have low ground units in Europe to counter because of the early bomber buys.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@aagamerz13:

This seems like an easy strategy to counter.  According to odds calc, a bomber at cost 12 only beats 1inf + 1AAA about 28% of the time while costing 4 IPCs more.  2 bombers only beat 2inf + 1AAA about 38% of the time while costing 13 ipcs more.  So, this is not a great tradeoff for axis if other players make lots of inf.  The counter is for US/UK to go to Spain round 3.  Germany should only have 4 or 5 bombers in range so they cant attack the fleet on round 4.  USSR should be making all inf + 1 or 2 AAs per round.  Germany is in trouble as they have low ground units in Europe to counter because of the early bomber buys.

Unfortunately, I don’t like the idea of giving Switzerland, Sweden, and Turkey with a back door for Middle East oil if you do the Spanish Beachhead.

[Ichabod]

@aagamerz13:

Germany is in trouble as they have low ground units in Europe to counter because of the early bomber buys.

This is the biggest misconnection about Dark Skies.
Dark Skies purchases is:

G1: 2 bombers / 1 sub. (G1 could also be 6 Artillery / 2 Infantry and it still be a Dark Skies Strategy)
G2-3: All Ground (maybe 1 destroyer)
G4: 3 Bombers / 3 tanks at Leningrad
G5+: 2 Bombers / Ground (And maybe a sub here and there) - Enough ground units are purchased to push Russia back and move into Bryansk, then Rostov, and hold Stalingrad with the threat of Italian can openers.

Italy also buys ground to help defend Europe too. If you think someone won’t maybe buy a stack of infantry right when 5 US transports make it to SZ 91, then yes, maybe you will have cracked it.

I don’t know how to defeat it, but I do know it’s not as simple as you think.

[hcp]

Thank you for all your response!

@Arthur:

In a traditional G40 match with no bid and no bizarre dice, I have yet to lose as Axis.

AB Harris: in your experience, how many bids do allies need to draw with the Dark-Skies+J1 strategy?  And for those  bid games that Allies, will the US focus more on Germany or Japan in the early games?

@ShadowHAwk:

He got bombers so call him out.
round 2 move your 2 carriers +4 air in US turn to gibraltar ( with the standard destroyer + cruisers and 2 transports )

ShadowHAwk: thanks for the advice - it seems your advice is an early-game full-KGF?  If yes, how many turns will you have before coming back to J1 Pacific?  and what would be the strategic objective to achieve in Europe before that?

To: Ichabod
Gargantua is probably right and the only person here who has the wherewithal to defeat this type of stuff.

Yes, I treasure everyone’s advice in helping me to improve my next Allies games.

The problem for me is that Germany doesn’t spam bombers right away in a well played Dark Skies game. Therefore, I don’t know the best formula for winning as the Allies. I suck at this game, even worse as the Allies.

My last game seems to inform me that, we cannot over-protect Moscow - you see my UK-Russian/ME troops cannot do against strong German stack. 
So I am thinking the allies are forced to make two decisions: first is to make Russia and ME “just enough” to defend, so that we can mobilize the largest amount of UK/US units to threaten Europe or East Asia.  And this comes the second decision: if you go for Europe, you will soon face crazy Japanese air+navy to take the last VC.  Otherwise, you face Germany bombers.  I am thinking which strategy will be better.

I’ve noticed that better players than me play slow and methodical to stall on whichever side I’m attacking. It’s annoying because they put themselves in a situation where their income is higher, they can defend, and then increase their TUV to the point that the Allies are just out built. If you let up against Japan because you’re scared that Germany is getting too powerful, still don’t let up. You won’t build enough US stuff in time to make a difference (hence your loaded carriers but not enough transports because you spent so much money on defense).

Yes, I will take your word of not to let up one side of the board.

[hcp]

@Ichabod:

@aagamerz13:

Germany is in trouble as they have low ground units in Europe to counter because of the early bomber buys.

This is the biggest misconnection about Dark Skies.
Dark Skies purchases is:

G1: 2 bombers / 1 sub. (G1 could also be 6 Artillery / 2 Infantry and it still be a Dark Skies Strategy)
G2-3: All Ground (maybe 1 destroyer)
G4: 3 Bombers / 3 tanks at Leningrad
G5+: 2 Bombers / Ground (And maybe a sub here and there) - Enough ground units are purchased to push Russia back and move into Bryansk, then Rostov, and hold Stalingrad with the threat of Italian can openers.

Italy also buys ground to help defend Europe too. If you think someone won’t maybe buy a stack of infantry right when 5 US transports make it to SZ 91, then yes, maybe you will have cracked it.

I don’t know how to defeat it, but I do know it’s not as simple as you think.

In my previous game, knowing KJF, my opponents purchase:
G1: 2bombers, 1tank
G2: 5mech+5tank, bomber
G3: 5mech+4tank
G4: 3tanks at Leningrad, 4mech+3tank at Germany
G5: 3tanks at Leningrad, 3tanks at Ukraine, 2bomber
G6+: 4bombers + some leftover land units

Just a curious question: why many Dark Skies buy one sub in first turn?  Normally UK has ~0 ships in Atlantic after moving into Med in UK1.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Convoy disruption would be the only good reason at that point. However, most UK players I know don’t abandon the home fleet for Italian disruption though that isn’t a bad idea. In my case, if Germany loses there navy and a good portion of their air force, it would be wise for UK to build transports and try snatch loose German territories like Norway and Finland.

[hcp]

@aagamerz13:

This seems like an easy strategy to counter.  According to odds calc, a bomber at cost 12 only beats 1inf + 1AAA about 28% of the time while costing 4 IPCs more.  2 bombers only beat 2inf + 1AAA about 38% of the time while costing 13 ipcs more.  So, this is not a great tradeoff for axis if other players make lots of inf.  The counter is for US/UK to go to Spain round 3.  Germany should only have 4 or 5 bombers in range so they cant attack the fleet on round 4.  USSR should be making all inf + 1 or 2 AAs per round.  Germany is in trouble as they have low ground units in Europe to counter because of the early bomber buys.

As Ichabod shows, Germany will be buying heavy land in G2-G3+.  Plus its superior starting land force which are good at attacking and defending, Russia who starts with only a lot of inf has low chance to catch up with Germany, not to mention Germany also have tact+fighters helping their defense.

[Caesar-Seriona]

I think the negative about Dark Skies is while you have units that have great defense, you don’t have the numbers and while USSR tends to rely on numbers since they can only really afford to rely on infantry and artillery will eventually lead to them over run Axis forces with numbers instead of the other way around.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

Bids have moved to the 40 range in many League matches using standard G40 rules.  I definitely would not want to be Allies for less than 30. Against weaker Allied opponents I have done okay with spotting them a 100 bid.

Caesar: you have been playing too many weak Axis players!

[Caesar-Seriona]

@Arthur:

Bids have moved to the 40 range in many League matches using standard G40 rules.  I definitely would not want to be Allies for less than 30. Against weaker Allied opponents I have done okay with spotting them a 100 bid.

Caesar: you have been playing too many weak Axis players!

It’s hard where I live. I don’t have a lot of players for AnA, and every single game I have played always have the Axis being pacifist until turn 4. I am the only Axis player that does a J1. I haven’t made my mind up yet on Germany or Italy.

On the other note, I don’t like the bid system anyways because you’re not restricted to how much money you request to add on the board and under the only bid I have ever seen tend to place units on weak spots that greatly break the Axis such as adding more destroyers for UK, adding more infantry to China, and in my case, adding artillery in USSR east.

[taamvan]

the bid works great, its just deciding whether you need to use it or not.    Our recent G40 games seem pretty balanced, but that’s a combination of factors (took a break, trying new things, adding new players).

having played this so many times, at this point the most interesting challenge is the vanilla Ger vs USSR can Russia survive.    There are still new dynamics to work out on the critical path, at least for me.

[simon33]

@Arthur:

Bids have moved to the 40 range in many League matches using standard G40 rules.  I definitely would not want to be Allies for less than 30. Against weaker Allied opponents I have done okay with spotting them a 100 bid.

Caesar: you have been playing too many weak Axis players!

How much do you reckon adopting the BM SBR rules would change the starting bid? I reckon it should go pretty close to halving it.

Footnote: Axis are looking good in the 2015 League Championship game for victory in the Pacific after a 40 bid for the Allies! Although J1 was extremely rough for the Allies.

[wheatbeer]

@simon33:

How much do you reckon adopting the BM SBR rules would change the starting bid? I reckon it should go pretty close to halving it.

I agree with you 100% on this. SBR against Moscow (or London) is downright impossible to counter if the Axis are dedicated to it. And sure the Allies can SBR, but the Axis have better counter-strategies available (defending potential SBR bases like Norway or Iwo Jima).

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

I don’t see that the Bal Mod changes to SBR is too much of a game-changer.  Both sides do bombing raids so the modifications work both ways.  Add in that most attacks against Moscow are happening on G4+, and it doesn’t have nearly as much impact as additional units to swing key battles during the first round.  An extra 20 PUs of bid results in an additional 20+ PU swing in net battle casualties, leading to a 40+ swing of units in key areas, leading to 60+ swing of units by the fifth turn.  A bombing raids just have a slight positive outcome when you throw in chance that the planes are shot down and that your units are out of position to do other actions for a round or two.

Personally I don’t do too many SBR as Germany because my goal is to head to the Middle East, avoiding a Moscow attack until G10+ in most games.  If the Allies are going heavy in the Atlantic, I spend 10 PUs per round to reinforce France with three ground units and another 7 PUs per round to reinforce Scandinavia with a couple of ground units.  That limits the ability to overwhelm the Eastern front.  I can patiently win the game with an economic victory by having the combined Japan+Germany income exceed that of the Allies.  The ability to project power with the bomber force makes the advantage enormous, especially in a TripleA match where I can battlecalc every option every round.  One mistake and an Allied force will get pulverized.

[wheatbeer]

@Arthur:

Both sides do bombing raids so the modifications work both ways.

It is far harder for the Allies to effectively SBR Germany or Japan. If the Allies have the resources and position to cripple a majorIC, then they’re probably already winning anyways. Allied SBR is mostly gravy.

@Arthur:

A bombing raids just have a slight positive outcome when you throw in chance that the planes are shot down and that your units are out of position to do other actions for a round or two.

Assuming average results, 6 runs will yield 1 lost bomber (-12) and 25 damage inflicted. That return on investment is pretty good, but it’s not the whole picture.

When you ultimately attack Moscow, every infantry that Russia couldn’t afford is another infantry who’s not inflicting casualties for every round of that battle (for arguments sake, lets say 3 rounds). If SBR results in just 8 fewer Russians, that might equal 24 shots in the battle (some of which will be hitting more expensive units than merely other infantry).

SBR can also allow Germany can capture Moscow earlier than it otherwise could, which can be priceless.

Don’t get me wrong, SBR is not required to win at all. I am just saying that if you choose to go that route, it can easily be a game-changer.

[taamvan]

as we’ve often discussed about Dark Skies and Bright Skies, the bomber is a game changer–not on the TUV economics.      Its the only way Axis can melt the economy of the Allies, if you add in taking all their land, blocking their NOs, and convoying them, its devastating because the UK and USSR econs are smaller than Germanys.

With the AB rule it just moves so far, and it’s so versatile.  So you blast Russia, then UK, then blast their fleet, even when you just bought 1-2 SBs per turn.

We are going to try BM/YG rules next game and at least as we’ve been playing recently, there are a lot more fighters intercepting/escorting than ever before.  More fighters surviving longer and on key AB zones, thinking itll be a game changer too.

[hcp]

@Arthur:

Add in that most attacks against Moscow are happening on G4+, and it doesn’t have nearly as much impact as additional units to swing key battles during the first round.  An extra 20 PUs of bid results in an additional 20+ PU swing in net battle casualties, leading to a 40+ swing of units in key areas, leading to 60+ swing of units by the fifth turn.

AB Harris: might I ask where are those first round key battle areas that the bid can offer such large PU swings?  I can only identify North Africa sub+Tank+2 art to have such large effect.

If I have 40 bid, where should I put the 20 additional bid (besides the above North Africa units) to counter patient Dark Skies + J1 attack?